iDesign @ UCI

Welcome Message To New Students

Interested in Origins?
Join the club.


Mission Statement

FAQ

Organization


MISSION STATEMENT:

iDesign Club at UCI seeks to foster scientific discussions regarding the origins of life and the universe. Theories such as Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, and creationism will be critically analyzed.


FAQ:

Q: WHAT IS THIS CLUB ABOUT?

Origins! We are interested in discussing alternative theories to the origins of biological structures. While the current mainstream theory in academia is Darwinian evolution, we would also like to discuss other viable ideas, such as intelligent design.

Q: WHO CAN BE A MEMBER OF THIS CLUB?

Anybody! Students of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Engineering, Anthropology, and Philosophy may especially find this club intriguing. However, you do not need to have a science background to be an effective member of this club.

Q: WHEN AND WHERE ARE CLUB MEETINGS?

Please check blog entries for time and place.

Q: WHAT IS THE MEMBERSHIP FEE?

Nothing! There are no membership dues.

Q: IS THIS CLUB BIASED TOWARDS ONE SPECIFIC THEORY OF ORIGINS?

Perhaps. Ponder the name of this club. This club is ideologically the mirror of another club at UCI, the Students for Science and Skepticism. However, our main goal is to give a balanced view of the controversy regarding the origins of life so that students can come to an informed conclusion themselves.

Q: WHAT DOES THE LETTER "i" STAND FOR IN iDESIGN?

Good question -- the answer is intelligent.

Q: WHERE IS THE CLUB CONSTITUTION?

We adhere to the minimum constitution that was provided by the Dean of Students. In the future, we plan to draft a comprehensive constitution and bylaws.

Q: IS iDESIGN AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION?

No. However, we are friends with the IDEA Center


ORGANIZATION:

PRESIDENT:
Arthur
Information and Computer Science

VICE PRESIDENT:
Brian
Biology / English

DIRECTOR:
Andrew
English / Economics



Friday, October 14, 2005

"Darwin or Design?"

The October issue of the Irvine Review has already been published and is now out on the campus stands. This issue includes an article that I wrote, which I have reproduced below:



Darwin or Design?
Or could it be both?
by Arthur Asuncion

During Welcome Week, I took an informal poll of students who stopped by the iDesign club booth. I asked one simple question: “Which theory of human origins is closest to your personal view?” Approximately 40% answered “Creationism,” 20% answered “Darwinian Evolution,” 15% answered “Intelligent Design,” 15% answered “Theistic Evolution,” and 10% answered “Don’t Know.”

Although this unscientific poll was based on a very small sample size, it highlights the diversity of opinions that UCI undergraduates have regarding the issue of origins. In fact, the question of origins is probably one of the most important questions in life. A person’s response reveals his underlying worldview and outlook in life.

This past summer, intelligent design has received much attention from the national media. In August, President Bush stated his support for teaching multiple theories on origins, including intelligent design, in schools. Other national politicians, like Senate Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist and Senator John McCain, have endorsed intelligent design as well.

Religious leaders have also weighed in on this issue of origins. For instance, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn made some bold statements in a recent New York Times opinion piece titled “Finding Design in Nature”:

“Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of ‘chance and necessity’ are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.”

What is intelligent design and why is it controversial? Intelligent design basically suggests that life was (at least in part) designed, rather than evolved through the Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection and mutation. There is also a cosmological version of intelligent design, which suggests that the universe and Earth were designed, or fine-tuned, for life.

To many people of faith (Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others), the concept of intelligent design is non-controversial and probably even obvious. Some are comfortable with the idea that God is the designer and ultimate cause for life. The unscientific poll I took during Welcome Week suggests that a majority of UCI undergraduates are in agreement with this position.

The controversy is in the realm of science and academia. Most scientists, including probably many of the excellent faculty here at UCI, would not consider intelligent design to be credible because they believe it to be inherently unscientific. Scientists mostly hold to a principle known as “methodological naturalism,” which excludes any hint of supernaturalism and mysticism. Since intelligent design is often equated to mysticism, some categorize intelligent design as being pseudoscientific nonsense even before considering any evidence.

But is intelligent design equivalent to mysticism, or is there positive empirical evidence to support intelligent design?

Charles Darwin made a significant contribution to science when he outlined the concept of evolution through natural selection. Proponents of intelligent design, and even creationists, accept evolution within species; they call it micro-evolution. A few intelligent design proponents, like Dr. Michael Behe at Lehigh University, also accept macro-evolution and common descent, which suggests that all life forms descended from a common ancestor.

While Darwin sought to explain the origin of life from a naturalistic perspective, the technology during his day did not enlighten him to the fact that the molecular building blocks of life were complex and elegant machines. Modern science now knows that life contains multitudes of molecular motors. These motors not only “look” designed, but they also functionally operate as designed machines would operate. The existence of molecular motors at the bedrock of life is strong positive evidence for intelligent design.

There are many other examples of apparent design in nature; in fact, we do not have to search further than within ourselves to find evidence of design. Consider the incredibly complex human brain, the eye, the dexterous human hand, the information-efficient DNA, and the ability of humans to effortlessly process natural language.

In fact, there is a field called biomimetics which seeks to mimic the engineering marvels found within nature. This past summer, Mercedes-Benz announced a new bionic concept car which mimicked the aerodynamically-efficient and stable shape of a boxfish. Intelligent design would predict that many more innovative design concepts could be extracted from nature.

This mind-boggling complexity and elegance in nature has caused some scientists to question the standard naturalistic story of abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution. In 2004, world-class philosopher Antony Flew abandoned his atheism due to the strength of intelligent design arguments.

While the main controversy is about biological intelligent design, the argument for cosmological intelligent design is similarly gaining more attention. Charles Townes, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, makes the following comments in a UCBerkeleyNews interview:

“Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

Some scientists argue that ‘well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.’ Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It’s very clear that there is evolution, and it’s important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they’re both consistent.”

Some critics of intelligent design point out the problem of malady in the world; they question how the presence of evil and suffering can be compatible with intelligent design. However, this is a philosophical criticism rather than a scientific criticism, and there are compelling philosophical answers to this criticism.

In my opinion, nature has revealed an abundance of evidence for design. If I asked you the same poll question that I asked during Welcome Week, which theory of origins would you choose?

Posted by Art at 11:41 PM

8 Comments:

Blogger Vleeptron Dude said...
Approximately 40% answered “Creationism,” 20% answered “Darwinian Evolution,” 15% answered “Intelligent Design,” 15% answered “Theistic Evolution,” and 10% answered “Don’t Know.”
==========================

I would have felt a little more comfortable with "natural selection" rather than "Darwinian Evolution," and I think a lot of other respondents would have also. It's a nuance and spin, but "Darwinian Evolution" these days handcuffs the theory to an image of an anti-religious atheistic materialist icon, transforming an entirely scientific schema into "Darwin's God-Bashing."

Every time an Intelligent Design controversy erupts -- on a school board, in a textbook like "Of Pandas and People," in a lawsuit -- it's always just one "scientist" away from a fundamentalist/evangelical religious organization or a seemingly scientific "front" for such faith-based promoters. Intelligent Design is just a re-worded loophole to evade the US Supreme Court's decision that Creationism taught in public schools was ultimately religious teaching and thus violated the First Amendment.

My biggest concern is that we're politically and culturally poised to educate a generation of kids in Science with a Religious Agenda -- i.e., in Junk Science, Non-Science, Pseudoscience. This is not the kind of Life Sciences cadre I want to see 20 years from now combatting new communicable diseases or supervising the scientific foundations of agriculture. They won't know what scientists know, they won't think the way scientists should. There's just no room at the top for research scientists faced with big scientific questions who ask, "What would Jesus do?" It's a slick-sounding resurrection of the way societies grappled with Life Science problems 700 years ago -- by seeking Divine Intervention and persecuting agents of the Devil.
10/15/2005 12:54 AM
Blogger Vleeptron Dude said...
On re-reading my comment, clearly I tried to give the impression that I was writing from an entirely scientific and non-religious perspective. But in the interests of honesty and accuracy, this isn't really entirely true. I have a religious agenda, and a specific Belief System, in matters concerning the origins of Life and the Universe, and I wish to disclose it. The original and fullest statement of my beliefs regarding alternative theories of origins is

http://www.venganza.org/

Intelligent Design/Creationism is also discussed in many posts on my blog

http://vleeptron.blogspot.com
10/15/2005 8:11 AM
Blogger Beccah said...
Micro evolution is the change in alleles inside the genetic material, which Darwin observed in his trip on the Beagle. Macro evolution is alleles being added to the genetic material, which is impossible. Creationists know that evolution is false. They believe that alleles inside genetics be added to through reproduction but not through radiation or any other way.
10/18/2005 8:45 AM
Blogger Ed Darrell said...
I wonder how your audience would answer these questions:

1. How well do you understand Darwinian theory? Can you explain it to your 9th grader's biology class?

2. Were you taught evolution in school?

3. If "yes" on #2, how long did your class spend on evolution?:

A. One hour
B. One week
C. Two weeks
D. An entire semester
E. An entire year
F. Evolution was woven throughout the course

4. If you knew that our nation's defenses against avian influenza depend on a good understanding of Darwinian evolution, would you favor introducing intelligent design into high school curricula instead?

Heck, I'd be fascinated to hear your answers, or the answers of anyone affiliated with "Design@UCI."
11/27/2005 6:53 PM
Blogger fdocc said...
'Attorney' Edwin S. Darrell,

We are still waiting for your 'evidence' to document your careless claims as well as those of your careless as well 'client' Douglas Altshuler.

Then you need to explain why carelessly , as well, evolution and darwinism are deliberately misrepresenting the relationships between organisms by using the speculative and erroneous word of 'speciation' instead of the most accurate word of variation.

Intelligent Design has many research programs just waiting for a better freedom in the academic environment, please, answer if you can, what is your opinion about that?

Note: Arthur A., other posters can comment as well in the linked places.

Thanks!

Fernando Castro-Chavez.
1/20/2006 9:12 AM
Blogger Art said...
Hi Ed,

1. I think so
2. Yes
3. I'm taking a class now that talks about it all the time.
4. I do not dispute evolution on the small-scale. The teaching of both intelligent design and evolution does not impede research on the Avian flu.
2/03/2006 4:10 PM
Blogger Vleeptron Dude said...
There's never been a president so friendly to and cooperative with Christian religious organizations. America hasn't been so politically conservative since the McCarthy Red Scare era of the 1950s.

So why can't Intelligent Design get any traction in the public schools? Why does it get tossed out rudely in the federal courts? Why did all but one member of the Dover PA School Board get rudely bounced by the voters in favor of anti-ID-curriculum candidates?

This weekend it was Darwin's birthday, and ministers in churches all around the US gave Sunday sermons preaching that modern science, including Natural Selection, are NOT in conflict with belief in Judaeo-Christian God.

The American people are simultaneously (1) religious and (b) not idiots. ID smells like five-day-old sushi to most Americans. They know it's not Science, they can see where ID comes from and who's pushing it, and they don't want their kids' public school science curriculum contaminated by Loopy Junk Science that hasn't a scintilla of support in the Scientific Method. (But is a huge hit among fundamentalist evangelicals.)

All of ID's "ideas" trace back to the anti-Catholic bigot Bishop Ussher's calculations of the Begats in the Old Testament.

Get Real: The Universe was NOT created in six days in 4004 BC. One web IDiot says it can all be explained if we assume the Speed of Light hasn't always been a constant, but has slowed down over the aeons. That's nice. And how does ID get around Radioactive Decay and radiocarbon dating?
2/14/2006 11:06 AM
Blogger fdocc said...
Bob Merkin said...

"All of ID's "ideas" trace back to the anti-Catholic bigot Bishop Ussher's calculations of the Begats"

Get Real! As you said, and please, document your claims. If you are unable to do so, hold your peace. Your inability to document your own words is in the very same category of Darrell's and Altshuler's unfounded claims. Yours is also a "Babble Talking", like theirs.
3/12/2006 8:19 AM

Post a Comment

<< Return To Main Blog


iDESIGN BLOGROLL:

The Design Paradigm
Design Watch
Creation-Evolution Headlines
Telic Thoughts
Uncommon Descent
ID the Future
ID Plus
CreationEvolutionDesign
Evolution News
Dualistic Dissension
ID in the UK
ID Update
Intelligently Sequenced


PRO-DESIGN SITES:

Access Research Network
IDEA Center
UCSD IDEA Club
ISCID


PRO-EVOLUTION SITES:

Panda's Thumb
Talk Origins
Students for Science and Skepticism at UCI
NAS: Science and Creationism


PRO-CREATION SITES:

Answers in Genesis
Institute for Creation Research
A.E. Wilder Smith
Reasons to Believe
Baraminology News
CreationWiki


OTHER INTERESTING SITES:

American Scientific Affiliation
Richard Sternberg


ANTEATER LINKS:

University of California, Irvine
New University
Irvine Review
School of Biological Sciences
School of Medicine
School of Physical Sciences
Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Science
Henry Samueli School of Engineering
UCI Athletics
UCI Alumni Association


BLOG ARCHIVES:

June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
April 2007

Copyright © iDesign at UCI 2005. The views presented in this web site are our own. By using this site, you signify that iDesign at UCI is not liable for anything. Site maintained by Arthur Asuncion. Template last modified June 15, 2005.

Powered by Blogger